Apologies to Nereid...

[Nitai]

Bravo; Thankyou for highlighting many of the challenges faced by online security firms. Now, some may not be aware that It is a common online security technique to compare time signatures of single individuals posting under different online names, when online persona's encounter a particular idea or motivation these persona's will often remain on their own task and never remember to, or know of continuing to post as would be expected from regular random-persona's of differing IRL-identities. Upon running rather simple algorithms, it is revealed with statistical significance you have isolated common IRL to online persona relationships.

In this technique, we have a fusion of both human psychology and lightning fast statistical analysis, probably not covered in forum architecture 101 or "intermernet how-to's". Some of these techniques may also not be as apparent to the casual reader, or casual contributor participating in such exchanges, when they are, it is best to distract from them and never address them. Ironically whilst some of the other raised points may not be apparent to the 'old', it is usually these points which are not apparent to the 'young'.

It is also note worthy that the technique works very well even without common content similarities. I'll leave it ones own to be mindful of the addition of content similarities and other points raised above.

Maybe this tip will help ones future endeavors, the rest of us may rather utilize our capacities on far more enlightening activities.

I am done with this thread, i'm glad it's all in one place.

Bravo my friend.

[Nereid]

Bravo; Thankyou for highlighting many of the challenges faced by online security firms. Now, some may not be aware that It is a common online security technique to compare time signatures of single individuals posting under different online names, when online persona's encounter a particular idea or motivation these persona's will often remain on their own task and never remember to, or know of continuing to post as would be expected from regular random-persona's of differing IRL-identities. Upon running rather simple algorithms, it is revealed with statistical significance you have isolated common IRL to online persona relationships.

In this technique, we have a fusion of both human psychology and lightning fast statistical analysis, probably not covered in forum architecture 101 or "intermernet how-to's". Some of these techniques may also not be as apparent to the casual reader, or casual contributor participating in such exchanges, when they are, it is best to distract from them and never address them. Ironically whilst some of the other raised points may not be apparent to the 'old', it is usually these points which are not apparent to the 'young'.

It is also note worthy that the technique works very well even without common content similarities. I'll leave it ones own to be mindful of the addition of content similarities and other points raised above.

Maybe this tip will help ones future endeavors, the rest of us may rather utilize our capacities on far more enlightening activities.

I am done with this thread, i'm glad it's all in one place.

Fascinating.

I guess you'd need quite a bit of reliable data in order to do the statistical analyses on, and I guess there are people (especially spamsters) who have worked on ways of creating false statistical signatures (for example, preparing stuff offline, on several different machines, or in several browsers/windows, and then posting in rapid succession). As I said elsewhere, my experience in dealing with spam, and spamsters, on the discussion forum associated with APOD, showed me that there are an awful lot of people in the world who have put a great deal of creativity and ingenuity into how to create online impressions.

[Floyd415]

Nereid, have you read, Don Scott's 'The Electric Sky'? You would likely have more luck understanding our Electric Universe if you read that, than just by asking all sorts of questions on all sorts of forums. Perhaps after a reading of that text, conversations on thunderbolts.info would be more fruitful?

[Siggy_G]

Floyd415: while I agree with your advice, and I don't intend to answer on behalf of Nereid, it's my impression that many of the questions raised by her is not literally because of not knowing Electric Universe source material. The (leading?) questions or critisism raised could end up being just as much a help (guideline/correction/acid test) as any apparent destructive critic; to the extent it could come through as that.

[Tina]

AstronomyDictionary.com
Nereid
Definition

* Satellite of Neptune discovered by Gerald Kuiper in 1949. Under 500km in diameter, it has a 5.6 million km, 359 day orbit of high eccentricity and inclination, which takes it within 1.4 million km of Neptune at its closest and over 9.7 million km away at its most distant.

It's not surprising that derivations of Neried (mermaid) are a popular choice for female astronomers.

[Jarvamundo]

AstronomyDictionary.com
Nereid
Definition

* Satellite of Neptune discovered by Gerald Kuiper in 1949. Under 500km in diameter, it has a 5.6 million km, 359 day orbit of high eccentricity and inclination, which takes it within 1.4 million km of Neptune at its closest and over 9.7 million km away at its most distant.

It's not surprising that derivations of Neried (mermaid) are a popular choice for female astronomers.

.....

http://www.thunderbolts.info/wp/forum/phpB ... aa9#p50796
In any case, perhaps the BAUT moderator tusenfem would make an ideal moderator? He certainly has deep familiarity with plasma dynamics, a good grasp of the standard solar model

....

http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php? ... ost6890502
The whole problem is that at thunderdolts there are a bunch of amateurs trying to do solar plasma physics without having even the slightest ideas about electrodynamics! They read a paper and give comments like "electrons are not the only particles carrying the current -- any comments?" or after asking about energy (when Scott clearly stated that the electrostatic view should be abandoned for an electrodynamic) one of the "experts" says "E = q V" instead of the correct "E = I V", and even the big shot Talbott does not know sh from shinola.

It is really worth while to read Nereid's (DeiRenDopa) thread on the ES, to get an idea on how this ES "expert" team works (which includes Siggy_G and Sol88). The thread was linked to somewhere above on this or the previous page by Haig.

So, as far as it is this "expert" group working (and I use the term loosely) on the ES model/hypothesis/theory we can wait another 100 years before something significant may arise, but I doubt it will even then.

oops

[tayga]

http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php? ... ost6890502...
one of the "experts" says "E = q V" instead of the correct "E = I V"

I wrote that and I think it's a bit misleading to represent me as an expert. I've frequently declared that I'm anything but.

Nonetheless E = QV is correct and E = IV is not. If you divide both sides of E = QV by t (time) you get P = IV where P is power.

I take Jarvamundo's point. This tusenfem would make not make an impartial referee in any discussion on EU since they appear to be both misinformed and prone to mislead.

On a further point, I don't know the derivation of the name tusenfem but I infer that they are she rather than a he and I smell a rat. Was this your point, Jarvamundo?

[Jarvamundo]

I take Jarvamundo's point. This tusenfem would make not make an impartial referee in any discussion on EU since they appear to be both misinformed and prone to mislead.

On a further point, I don't know the derivation of the name tusenfem but I infer that they are she rather than a he and I smell a rat. Was this your point, Jarvamundo?

It's probably beneficial to take my post in context with my others on this thread, and the OP. We have here, Nereid's recommended peers confirming DeiRenDopa's identity with a mirror... just more clumsy BAUT nonsense.

[Aardwolf]

I take Jarvamundo's point. This tusenfem would make not make an impartial referee in any discussion on EU since they appear to be both misinformed and prone to mislead.

On a further point, I don't know the derivation of the name tusenfem but I infer that they are she rather than a he and I smell a rat. Was this your point, Jarvamundo?

It's probably beneficial to take my post in context with my others on this thread, and the OP. We have here, Nereid's recommended peers confirming DeiRenDopa's identity with a mirror... just more clumsy BAUT nonsense.

I think Nereid's comments regarding this only infer that these members should be treated as seperate persona's. I dont see any comment that states they are seperate legal entities, although maybe Nereid can clear up that confusion once and for all with a simple straight answer.

[tayga]

http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php? ... ost6890502...
one of the "experts" says "E = q V" instead of the correct "E = I V"

I've just visited this thread and discovered that no-one there has commented on tusenfem's error. I'm not sure what this indicates, maybe ignorance, lack of interest or uncritical acceptance?

Having looked into the name tusenfem further, I've revised my inference and decided that I can't really infer anything from it.

[davesmith_au]

... maybe Nereid can clear up that confusion once and for all with a simple straight answer.

Don't hold yer breath waiting...

[Tina]

Although the In Real Life Identities have not been ruled out as common, we must make the distinction online personas of Nereid, DeiRenDopa (apoDneRieD in reverse) and APODNereid....

Nereid has used some heavy duty dissembling techniques to disassociate "Nereid" from "DeiRenDopa" and "APODNereid".

Nereid says:

My main point - which Dave (and Dave Smith, the admin) accepted - is that here I can, and should, be judged on the basis of what I, Nereid, have written.

OK Nereid - the Nereid who is posting on TB - I'd like to take you on face value BUT this means that in utter bad faith we must ignore certain facts such as:

In BAUT "Nereid" discussing past incarnations of virtual "Nereid" says:

....It is true that DeiRenDopa spelled backwards is apoDneRieD.
"Nereid" was an admin on the 'Discuss an Astronomy Picture of the Day
(APOD)' forum, and was a Mentor (and a Super Mentor) on PF (also used to be
a mod here in BAUT).

The above "Nereid" admits to being APODNereid but we are not permitted to acknowledge this fact.

[davesmith_au]

Hmm, this "online persona" thing is getting curiouser and curiouser...

Nereid, back on the first page of this thread, you wrote:

My main point - which Dave (and Dave Smith, the admin) accepted - is that here I can, and should, be judged on the basis of what I, Nereid, have written.

Where, exactly, did I accept this? I've slogged through several threads and I can't find it anywhere.

Cheers, Dave.

[mharratsc]

tusenfem wrote:
http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php? ... ost6890502
The whole problem is that at thunderdolts there are a bunch of amateurs trying to do solar plasma physics without having even the slightest ideas about electrodynamics! They read a paper and give comments like "electrons are not the only particles carrying the current -- any comments?" or after asking about energy (when Scott clearly stated that the electrostatic view should be abandoned for an electrodynamic) one of the "experts" says "E = q V" instead of the correct "E = I V", and even the big shot Talbott does not know sh from shinola.

It is really worth while to read Nereid's (DeiRenDopa) thread on the ES, to get an idea on how this ES "expert" team works (which includes Siggy_G and Sol88). The thread was linked to somewhere above on this or the previous page by Haig.

So, as far as it is this "expert" group working (and I use the term loosely) on the ES model/hypothesis/theory we can wait another 100 years before something significant may arise, but I doubt it will even then.

We need to put this somewhere on a permanent sticky... like a 'Famous Last Words' thread.

[davesmith_au]

Hmm, this "online persona" thing is getting curiouser and curiouser...

Nereid, back on the first page of this thread, you wrote:

My main point - which Dave (and Dave Smith, the admin) accepted - is that here I can, and should, be judged on the basis of what I, Nereid, have written.

Where, exactly, did I accept this? I've slogged through several threads and I can't find it anywhere.

Cheers, Dave.

*crickets* ... *crickets* ...